Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Nov 2013, 02:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (02:27) correct
30%
(02:59)
wrong
based on 632
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Astronomer: Proponents of the hypothesis that life evolved extraterrestrially and drifted here in spores point out that, 3.8 billion years ago, Earth was bombarded by meteorites that would have destroyed any life already here. Yet 3.5 billion years ago, Earth had life forms complex enough to leave fossil remains. Such life could not have evolved here in the 0.3 billion years following the meteorite bombardments, they claim. There is good reason to regard their hypothesis as false, however, for they merely offer empirical arguments against the view that life evolved on Earth; neither they nor anyone else has provided positive support for the extraterrestrial-spore theory of the origin of terrestrial life.
The reasoning in the astronomer's argument is flawed because the argument
A. Reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true.
B. Fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible.
C. Concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, that there is evidence against that hypothesis.
D. Attempts to derive a conclusion form premises that contradict it.
E. Grants the truth of claims that are made by the advocates of that hypothesis but that do nothing to strengthen the astronomer's own argument.
The reasoning in the astronomer's argument is flawed because the argument
A. Reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true.
B. Fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible.
C. Concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, that there is evidence against that hypothesis.
D. Attempts to derive a conclusion form premises that contradict it.
E. Grants the truth of claims that are made by the advocates of that hypothesis but that do nothing to strengthen the astronomer's own argument.
08 Nov 2013, 10:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
There are two hypotheses being discussed here: 1) life evolved on Earth and 2) life evolved in space and then came to Earth. The astronomer lays out the argument by proponents for life evolving in space and coming to Earth. He then states that this argument is likely false, because this argument focuses on the impossibility of life evolving on Earth, but provides no solid evidence for the theory that life evolved in space and came to Earth. This is flawed because, while a lack of concrete evidence for life evolving in space and coming to Earth may provide room for an alternative explanation of some sort, this lack of evidence is not evidence AGAINST this hypothesis. Answer choice C captures this beautifully.
I hope this helps!!!
I hope this helps!!!
General Discussion
18 May 2025, 23:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument Summary
Proponents of the extraterrestrial-spore theory argue:
Flaw in the Reasoning:
The astronomer says there is good reason to reject the extraterrestrial hypothesis because it lacks positive evidence — but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a logical fallacy: just because no one has proven a hypothesis, doesn't mean it's false.
So, we want an answer that captures this "no evidence = it's false" reasoning flaw.
✅ Correct Answer: C. Concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, that there is evidence against that hypothesis.
Why it’s correct:
❌ Elimination of Incorrect Options:
A) Reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true.
B) Fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible.
D) Attempts to derive a conclusion from premises that contradict it.
E) Grants the truth of claims that are made by the advocates of that hypothesis but that do nothing to strengthen the astronomer's own argument.
Proponents of the extraterrestrial-spore theory argue:
- Life couldn’t have survived on Earth during meteorite bombardments 3.8 billion years ago.
- But by 3.5 billion years ago, fossil evidence shows complex life existed.
- They conclude that life didn’t originate on Earth, but arrived from elsewhere.
- These proponents merely argue against terrestrial origin.
- But they provide no positive evidence for their own extraterrestrial hypothesis.
- So, there’s good reason to reject their hypothesis.
Flaw in the Reasoning:
The astronomer says there is good reason to reject the extraterrestrial hypothesis because it lacks positive evidence — but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a logical fallacy: just because no one has proven a hypothesis, doesn't mean it's false.
So, we want an answer that captures this "no evidence = it's false" reasoning flaw.
✅ Correct Answer: C. Concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, that there is evidence against that hypothesis.
Why it’s correct:
- The astronomer criticizes the spore theory not by disproving it, but by noting that there's no positive support for it.
- The flaw is in concluding that the hypothesis is false simply because there is no direct evidence for it — this is a classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
❌ Elimination of Incorrect Options:
A) Reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true.
- The astronomer doesn't argue that the Earth-origin theory is equally likely — in fact, they don’t support any alternative hypothesis at all.
- The argument critiques one hypothesis based on lack of support, not by contrasting it with an alternative.
B) Fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible.
- The astronomer never says the extraterrestrial-spore theory is inherently implausible — they say it’s unsupported.
- This is a misrepresentation of the argument.
D) Attempts to derive a conclusion from premises that contradict it.
- There is no contradiction between the premises and the conclusion.
- The logic is flawed, yes, but not because the premises contradict the conclusion.
E) Grants the truth of claims that are made by the advocates of that hypothesis but that do nothing to strengthen the astronomer's own argument.
- While the astronomer does acknowledge the proponents' empirical arguments, the flaw isn't that they "granted" something irrelevant.
- The issue is the logic of dismissing a hypothesis due to lack of support, not the treatment of the other side’s claims.
